sculpt_deactivate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description's one line adds essentially nothing beyond them. It does not say what happens to in-progress sculpting deformations on deactivation, nor whether the mode change is global or strictly per-object beyond the parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; there is no wasted wording and the operation and scope are stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, output schema present, annotations covering its safety profile), so the description is close to sufficient. However, for a state-changing operation on molecular geometry, it omits any hint of what deactivation does to existing deformations, which is the one piece of context an agent could not infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single required parameter whose description ('Object to stop sculpting') matches the description text exactly. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('deactivates') and resource ('sculpting mode'), scoped to a single object, which is clearly distinct from the sibling sculpt_activate and sculpt_iterate. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to call this versus sculpt_activate or sculpt_iterate, nor on any preconditions (e.g., whether sculpting must already be active, or whether pending deformations need to be committed first). The only cue is the name itself, which implies usage rather than stating it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.